Observations on Values

Introduction

This observation began as an insight of my
partner-in-life, Dr. Judy Rose. Her patience and critique have
been crucial to whatever success I have with this concept. Our
discussion led to the philosophy of urban activist Jane Jacobs whose
work grounds this paper.

One can attribute the unwillingness of others to
change to inherent traits in peoples’ personalities that hinder their
ability to compromise.People
resist change because they see no need, expect others to change,
or
believe that the requested change is incorrect.An outgrowth of this
tendency is for
people to expect others to change while they tend to resist needed
change themselves.It is
logical to assume that change is based on perception and changing
perception is premised on questioning fixed beliefs.Fixed beliefs are thus supported by internal values and unless
internal values are altered fixed beliefs act as filters keeping one
from seeing the need-to-change (the central concept of paradigmatic
thinking).This tautology
is broken when paradigms are challenged.

Paradigms are defined in Webster’s as “patterns
of thought that provide a coherent model” of reality.Shifting
long held paradigms is an act of re-contextualization that is
facilitated when foundational precepts are challenged at a deep,
critical level.When
paradigm shifting is properly instituted change then becomes the desired
outcome and “resistance becomes futile”.A central activity of management guiding
organizational change should be stimulating stakeholders to believe that
maintaining old values takes greater energy then changing them.I believe that a key to stimulating paradigm shifting is grounded
in understanding and critiquing existing values-in-conflict.

Values

Definition:the ideals, customs, institutions, etc. of a society toward which
the people of the group have an affective regard. (Webster, 1996)

Values are intrinsically held beliefs that are
deeply engrained and unchallenged.The reason they remain unchallenged is that there exists
insufficient countervailing pressure to force individuals to re-evaluate
why they do what they do.Values
held by individuals and groups thus become difficult to change.They also tend to be: poorly defined by their very nature; not critically examined as to their
interpretive meaning; and become defined by each individual in unique
ways (What is Hon
or, how is it defined, who determines who is honor
able, etc.?).

Pragmatism is a form of philosophical thought that
runs counter to traditional thinking in that a pragmatist sees values as
not representing “right”
or
“wrong” thinking.A
pragmatic thinker believes that values are constructed among social
groups that, over time, agree to think
or
behave at a given level of conformity.When external phenomena represent a sufficient level of evidence
counterweighing “right” thinking then perception of right and wrong
must change.

Organizational learning is premised on a state of
cultural beliefs that are consciously adapting to a world of change.Belief
statements (think Mission/Vision) are articulated when the organization
creates coherent value structures that are adopted by both internal and
external stakeholders.Value
based assessment is designed to promote organizational learning and
break open fixed beliefs.Reformation
of an
organization can, I believe, be guided through delineation of conflicting
value sets.

Values–based Leadership

Definition:a relationship between a leader and followers that is based on
strongly shared values that are advocated and acted upon by the leader.
(Daft, 2001)

Traditionally, this form of leadership is top
down.Driven by both
espoused and enacted leader personal values, the
organization is expected to conform to leader delineated organizational
behavior
.Through enactment of
operational myths, uplifting symbols, and internally defined labels
managers inculcate followers into “right” behavior.Thus mimicking
perceived leadership values acts as a powerful mechanism on participants
for
guaranteeing conforming behavior
.Unfortunately, this practice does little to critically challenge underlying
organizational values.Organizations
confronting change become hobbled by their own inability to critically
examine c
ore conflicting values.

Organizational Structures

Organizations adopt structures based on internal
and external stakeholder needs; meeting client needs in an efficient and
flexible manner grounds organizational design.Most managers are adept at reconfiguring their organization
through various "tried and true" processes.Committees are f
or
med, bottlenecks and difficulties defined, restructuring proposed,
changes enacted, and evaluated with organizational structures
re-configured in response to evaluative data.Virtually untouched, in many cases, by this process are tacit,
underlying, deeply embedded unchallenged values.Thus, managers tend to focus on issues that they are comfortable
with (
organizational restructuring is well taught in business schools) and
avoid examining possible conflicting values (areas of knowledge
inadequately investigated in varied business contexts).Process therefore
e seems to win over unpleasant critical thinking. Unfortunately, this comfortable pattern of behavior
is normally subordinated when external forces seem bent on destroying
the very existence of the
organization.This
existential situation becomes an opportune time for
values to be reconsidered and ossified thinking to be challenged.

Guardian vs. Commercial Moral Values

The source for
the following value sets is Jane Jacobs who, during a life of study,
originally identified different "moral syndromes" applicable
to government and commerce (Jacobs, 1992).She used the trope of an extended discussion among characters
from different professional backgrounds to examine the m
oral codes that govern work. She found two "syndromes"—two
mutually exclusive collections of connected traits, self-
organized systems that evolved over the long span of human history. They derive, she argued, from the two and only two ways humans as a
species have of making a living: taking and trading. (Most
animals have only taking, better known as hunting and gathering.) She
dubs them the "guardian syndrome" and the "commercial
syndrome."(Postrel)

This work provides the foundation f
or
the following observations:

Guardians (Takers) are natural rule makers and enforcers of regulations.Societies
are mediated in their collective behavior
by rules and the resulting classification of observed societal
activities into “right” and “wrong” behavior.Guardians thus are
“boundary makers”; individuals,
organizations and/
or
agencies whose prime activity is to impose rules on others.In
order to maintain this activity there must be a strong internal
coherence (i.e. Esprit de Corps) to the guardian culture.Thus, this value set introduces an often in
ordinate need to maintain
order and impose restrictive procedures which end up enforcing a “closed system” that tends to become resistant to change.

A corollary to the previous statement is an
observation that rules are, by their very nature, imposed on others.When rules are implemented they tend to act as automatic
constraints governing openness to innovation.This is both good and bad.Sorting
out differences in perception is a key overarching activity of healthy
guardian organizations.Unfortunately for
guardians, when this critical evaluation process is ignored needed
change can be interpreted as “chaotic” and contributive to
perception of organizational decline.

Commercials (Traders) “do what they
want to do when they want to do it”.The primary function of commercial like behavior
is to garner “profit”.Finding
profitable situations often necessitates challenging the old order and,
in effect, introducing chaos into the system.This “chaotic” value set catalyzes “new thinking” and
often stimulates change.It
is important to note that this behavior
does not inherently impose rules
or
restrictions on stakeholders.It's
core value set is designed to encourage one to do one’s “thing”,
to trade openly with anyone for
anything in the pursuit of "profitable" situations.

Growing out of this value is an observation that by
fomenting entrepreneurial thinking one purposely introduces change.Change, in turn, works to open closed mindedness.Conversely, new ideas create disorder within closed systems.Traditionally, management science would say that this is classic
“paradigm shifting”.I
argue that that the value conflicts that arise from this situation are
not just mental frameworks being forced onto corporate stakeholders to change but are really
un-assessed systems of diametrically opposed values imposed into
close proximity with each other.

Therefore, it is my belief that moral values represent a set of unspoken and
unexamined beliefs people hold within any organization.I contend that
organizations whose standards wholly reside within one
or
another set of separated values tend to function in more routinely
coherent, efficient ways.The
reality is that most
organizations evolve into systems of mixed values that represent hybrids
with significant potential for
detrimental levels of internal conflict.An example would be a long-standing conservative accounting firm
(Guardian values of protecting client interests) suddenly acquiring a
consulting branch whose mission is to sell new and innovative analysis
of client activities.The
recent debacle in some national accounting firms comes readily to mind.As do the ethical problems manifested by Enron, WorldCom, etc.

In summary, when the separate
worlds of Guardians and Commercials become overly mixed the
result is hybridization (Jacobs, 1992) which I define as a
dysfunctional organization in conflict with itself.
More importantly, addressing deeply embedded conflicting human
values is very tough. It is my experience that challenging these
complex mental processes is normally avoided by the average manager.

Conflicting Values

Accepted values are challenged when
observations of behavior
run counter to community standards (ex. acceptance of bribes, exorbitant profits at the expense of shareholders, etc.).Organizational
stakeholders can either accept or
reject this “new” behavior
through systematic comparison to existing values.Values
thus become “regulative constraints” that allow us to “infer the
most plausible explanation” for
given organizational behavior.When sufficient
anomalies to existing values are perceived one can argue that values are
in a state of conflict. Conversely, when anomalies have been
critically analyzed and change management is properly implemented they
become guides to sustaining a state of balanced tension.
Thus, discerning the extent conflict becomes a crucial act of
evaluative management.

Guardian Moral Values

Value

Definition

Shun
trading

Bartering
for
bidden (ex: bribing an employee to obtain a service
or
favorable decision)

Exert
prowess

Heroic
or
exceptional service expected

Be
obedient and disciplined

Obey
orders and don’t question higher authority

Adhere
to tradition

Cultural
traditions, stories, rituals, etc.

Respect
hierarchy

Bypassing
the “boss” to get your way forbidden

Be
loyal

Be
faithful to your commitment to the organization

Take
vengeance

Punish
undesirable behavior

Deceive
for
the sake of the task

Using
undercover police officers or corporate moles to entice
criminals to sell drugs

Open
disagreement to create new products or
promote quality improvement encouraged

Invest for
productive purposes

Research and
development well funded in budget

and stable over time

Be
industrious

Hard working (nose-to-the-grindstone)

Be thrifty

Waste nothing

Be optimistic

Positive
attitude (Glass-half-full)

A key
question for the reader to answer is:Has the present evolution of
your organizational values resulted in discernable systemic
dysfunctional behavior?This question, the
resulting answer, and all implemented processes are designed to help an
organization define realistic boundaries hindering
or
facilitating its ability to acquire the critical traits of a functioning
“learning
organization”.

Change Process

The change
process I advocate can be stated as follows:

Define
the “gap” between existing belief systems (values) and desired
new behaviors;

Describe
Value Conflicts (VC) that impede change;

Isolate
disruptive from constructive values;

Formulate
training and administrative learning outcomes that support desired
new behaviors; and

Evaluate
and assess the level of change that has occurred.

Continue
the cycle over time.

The
final outcomes generated by this process represent revised values that
guide organizational change.

For
Further Thought

Admonitions on Managing and Leading

I believe in
behavior based management and leadership. What I generally contend is
that the ability of any manager or leader to pre-determine thought is
limited. I, as a leader, expect those who work with me exhibit certain
behaviors. The following observations are base on an attempt to codify a
winning combination of thoughts on fostering positive organizational
behavior and forward directed action.

Transparency is a desired
communication stance;
the ability of any organization to function is directly related to
information clarity. Hiding what we know from each other diminishes
trust and limits decision-making options.

Demand honesty;
expect that those who work for you to behave in positive, honest ways
thus enhancing your organization’s ability to value the contributions of
each person. Your ability to manage successfully is directly linked to
the open honesty of those you work with.

Leadership is the ability of
a person to get others to do things they may not want to do;
the key behavior the leader needs to exhibit is centered stability and
calmness. Everyone has the potential to lead. But work related
instability drives people to seek control over their situation. Your
ability to become a leader in your profession is directly related to
your listening skills. New leaders in new situations require patience;
the patience needed for acceptance by your workmates so that they
appreciate what you bring to changing their work situation.

Encourage curiosity;
once given leadership responsibility foster your subordinates to the
question status quo and behave in creative ways. Blind acceptance of
what “is” precludes what might be. Encourage everyone to Dig Deeper.
Evaluate “mistakes” for they are opportunities to learn.

Behave non-defensively to
conflict; conflict
is an opportunity to investigate why it exists, the validity of
reasoning that supports it, and the consequences of ignoring it. Leaders
realize that conflicting views generate new ideas
(thesis-antithesis-synthesis) and harness conflict to improve
organizational effectiveness.

Expect employees will do
their “best”; this
is not theory Y management. It is human based management that values
others and their unique contributions. It is the work others that
provides the energy for leadership success.

Honor employees’ need to
know more; if you
expect curiosity from your employees then provide rigorous
scientifically based training and development to support that need.

Create, at all costs, trust;
if we all behave in trustful ways we “bank” trust. That trust holds
together organizations through periods of discord and chaos that will
always occur.

Designprocess with people, not
independent of people;
people will want to help (positive behavior) if they are included in
process design. Refer back to trust and transparency.

Guide employees from a
positive stance, question employee behavior to tease out the negative;
the employee who is treated as a valuable person will respond to
critique by wanting to do better if they believe that you listen to
them.

Change happens, fear is a
natural response;
behave in an accepting way that the need to change
has emerged. Use change to challenge people’s existing behaviors, belief
systems will change over time. The future environment we innately seek
is a sense that we can control change. Constantly encourage behavior
that uses education as a means to know the future.

Much of what we believe we know does not come from direct experience;
it has been mediated by communication techniques only a few years old.
Future behavior will be influenced in ways we cannot presently fully
anticipate. Manage what you know through a lens of skepticism and a
desire to constantly seek to know more and consciously do so independent
of mainstream beliefs. Finally lead by example, words act as
reinforcements but in the end what we DO to others is what we ARE. The
Biblical Golden Rule still works.

Methods of Implementation

It is important that people contemplating value
analysis and gap assessment understand that there is no one level
to which this concept can be applied.Organizational structures are multi-varied and evolving.The last fifty years has seen the traditional vertically
organized, top down managed organization evolve into loose partnerships
of matrix-organized entities constantly reforming on a global scale on
an “as needed” basis.I
argue that if ever there was a situation in which values come in
conflict it is this “new world” of management practice.It is not just the CEO of an
organization in crises that needs to check for
gaps in the
organization, it is the individual managers of operational units down to
the smallest level.

Diversity

It is interesting to think of diversity on a number
of different plains.On one
level methods for managing diversity are mechanisms designed to provide
organizations with rules and regulations requiring conformance to a set
of imposed standards (Guardian values protecting organizational
viability).On another
level diversity challenges the organization to consider views, values,
and preconceptions different from the norm (Commercial values that
require negotiating complex behavior).Diversity issues thus introduce value conflicts that at their c
or
e are chaotic to “normal”
organizational behavior.I
believe that organizations sensitive to differences manifested by
diversity (gender, race, orientation,
or
m
or
e importantly the value systems that under girds each socially
constructed concept) tend to be more proficient at handling change.One can argue that enhanced awareness of overlapping, conflicting
value sets provide critical insight into methods for
implementing and evaluating desired behavioral change.

Global Change

We live in a world beset by problems of seeming intractability.
Political decision makers tend to seek solutions that maximize the
impact on society of ever decreasing resources. These decision makers must
experiment with modes to thought conductive to change formulation.
Breaking away from "guarded" beliefs and/or accepting
"commercial" solutions is, I contend, dependent on examining
the "monstrous" hybrid that impedes our ability to truly
understand what is in our best collective interest.